CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 décembre 2007
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-2341
- Date
- 18 décembre 2007
- Publication
- 18 décembre 2007
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officiellePreliminary objections joined to merits and dismisssed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lack of effective remedy in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint);No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the alleged restriction on the applicant's right of access to court in respect of the liquidation order;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the denial of the applicant 's right of access to court as a result of the Constitutional Court's failure to take a decision on his constitutional complaint;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the non-enforcement of the final decision of 7 July 1993;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the excessive length of the first and second sets of proceedings;No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the excessive length of the third, fourth and fifth sets of proceedings;Violation of Art. 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant's length-of-proceedings complaint;Not necessary to examine the remainder of the complaints under Art. 6;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - financial award (global);Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 103 December 2007 Marini v. Albania - 3738/02 Judgment 18.12.2007 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Failure to give final determination of the applicant’s constitutional appeal due to tied vote: violation   Facts : The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about five sets of proceedings he had brought following a dispute with the Albanian Government over a joint-venture company they had set up in 1991. Among other things, the applicant complained of the lack of access to the Constitutional Court, which had dismissed his appeal on account of a tied vote. Law : In reality, the Constitutional Court appeared to have failed to obtain a majority on any of the issues it had been called upon to decide and had therefore declined to take a decision in the applicant’s case. This had left the applicant without any final determination of his case and restricted the essence of his right of access to court. The tied vote provision in Albanian law did not serve the interests of legal certainty and was capable of depriving an individual of an effective right to have his constitutional appeal finally determined. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 330,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (lump sum including pecuniary damage for loss of   investment and   profits as the proceedings   had exceeded the reasonable time requirement and   the decision in the applicant's favour had   not been   enforced for a period of time).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Date
- 18 décembre 2007
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-2341
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel